Do unions contribute to creative destruction?

We apply a shift-share approach and historical unionisation data from 1918 to study the impact of regional unionisation changes in Norway on regional wage and productivity growth, job-creation and -destruction and social security uptake during the period 2003-2012. As unionisation increases, wages grow. Lay-offs through plant closures and shrinking workplaces increase, causing higher retirement rates, while job creation, plant entry and other social security uptakes are unaffected. Productivity grows, partly by enhanced productivity among surviving and new firms and partly by less productive firms forced to close due to increased labour costs. Thus, unions promote creative destruction.

Hazard Pay for COVID-19? Yes, But It's Not a Substitute for a Living Wage and Enforceable Worker Protections.

The COVID-19 pandemic is exposing critical failures in public and occupational health in the United States. So-called hazard pay for essential workers is a necessary but insufficient response to the lack of workplace protections. The roots of these failures in the weakening of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforcement and pandemic preparedness and the dramatic shifts in the economy and labor market in recent decades are explored along with the history of hazard pay. The current prominence of COVID-19-related workplace hazards, and the mobilization by both nonunion and union workers experiencing them, presents opportunities amid the crisis and tragic losses to envision a revival of worker protection measures. Strategies are needed for organizing and legislative advocacy to address the disparate impact of both normal and crisis conditions on low-wage workers, especially women and workers of color.

Right-to-Work-for-Less: How Janus v. AFSCME Threatens Public Health.

In February 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case poised to make right-to-work (or, as some call it, right-to-work-for-less) the law in the public sector. At issue is the constitutionality of requiring non-union members, who benefit from collective bargaining, to pay fees that support contract negotiations on the terms and conditions of their employment. We argue that a win for Janus would threaten public health by eroding organized labor's power to improve working conditions. Furthermore, we critique the dubious legal theory underpinning Janus's case and describe the moneyed political interests backing his legal representation. Finally, we chart a path forward for labor organizing in a post- Janus world, drawing inspiration from the winter 2018 educators' strike in West Virginia. Regardless of how Janus itself is decided, the issues raised in this article remain crucial because the ongoing weakening of unions by legislative and judicial means undermines workers' health and exacerbates inequities.

The fallacies in arguing that current high unemployment in Spain (27%) is a consequence of supposed labor market rigidities.

This article refutes the argument that high unemployment in Spain is due to labor market rigidities, questioning the premises on which this theory is based. It then goes on to explain how those advancing this argument are the very same forces responsible for the macroeconomic decisions that are currently causing unemployment.

An evaluation of health benefit modification in Taft-Hartley health and welfare funds: implications for encouraging tobacco-cessation coverage.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one fifth of all U.S. adult smokers receive health benefits through insurance plans administered by Taft-Hartley Health and Welfare Funds. Most funds do not offer comprehensive tobacco-cessation services to fund participants despite evidence that doing so would be cost effective and save lives. PURPOSE: This paper examines the decision-making processes of Minnesota-based fund trustees and advisors to identify factors that influence decisions about modifications to benefits. METHODS: Formative data about the process by which funds make health benefit modifications were collected in 2007-2008 from 25 in-depth key informant interviews with fund trustees and a cross-section of fund advisors, including administrators, attorneys, and healthcare business consultants. Analyses were performed using a general inductive approach to identify conceptual themes, employing qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: The most commonly cited factors influencing trustees' decisions about health plan benefit modifications-including modifications regarding tobacco-cessation benefits-were benefit costs, participants' demand for services, and safeguarding participants' health. Barriers included information gaps, concerns about participants' response, and difficulty projecting benefit utilization and success. Advisors wielded considerable influence in decision-making processes. CONCLUSIONS: Trustees relied on a small pool of business, legal, and administrative advisors to provide guidance and recommendations about possible health plan benefit modifications. Providing advisors with evidence-based information and resources about benefit design, cost/return-on-investment (ROI), effectiveness, and promotion may be an effective means to influence funds to provide comprehensive tobacco-cessation benefits.